Y
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 ELP
Docket No. 2165-00
22 August 2000
From:
To:
Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
Secretary of the Navy
Subj:
REVIEW OF
NAVAL RECORD OF
Ref:
(a) 10 U.S.C.1552
Encl:
(1) DD Form 149 w/attachments
(2) Case Summary
(3) Subject's Naval Record
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a
1.
former enlisted member of the United States Marine Corps,
applied to this Board requesting, in effect, that his
reenlistment code be changed.
The Board, consisting of Messrs. Lippolis and Ivins and Ms.
2.
LeBlanc reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice
on 16 August 2000 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined
that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on
the available evidence of record.
considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval
records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
Documentary material
The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record
3.
pertaining to Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice
finds as follows:
a.
Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all
administrative remedies available under existing law and
regulations within the Department of the Navy.
b.
Although it appears that Petitioner's application to
the Board was not filed in a timely manner, it is in the
interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations and
review the application on its merits.
C .
Petitioner enlisted in the Marine Corps on 27 November
1995 for four years at age 19.
d.
The medical record reflects that in April 1996
Treatment continued through 19 June 1996, when medical
Petitioner began treatment for a tibia1 stress fracture and knee
pain.
authorities concluded that prescribed medications and treatments
had proven unsuccessful and recommended that Petitioner be
separated.
e. On 11 July 1996 the commanding officer recommended that
Petitioner be administratively separated with an honorable
discharge by reason of convenience of the government due to a
physical condition not a disability.
Petitioner was notified that discharge proceedings were being
initiated by reason of convenience of the government due to a
physical condition not a disability.
He was advised of his
procedural rights and declined to submit a statement in his own
behalf or consult with counsel.
On the same date,
f.
On 18 July 1996 the discharge authority directed an
honorable discharge by reason of convenience of the government
due to a physical condition which was not a disability.
Petitioner was so discharged on 15 August 1996 and assigned an
RE-4 reenlistment code.
g-
An RE-4 reenlistment code means that the individual is
not recommended for reenlistment.
An RE-3P reenlistment code
means the individual failed to meet physical/medical standards
but is recommended for reenlistment except for the disqualifying
factor.
This code may be waived to allow reenlistment if the
disqualifying factor which led to discharge no longer exists.
CONCLUSION:
In this regard, the Board notes Petitioner served for
had no disciplinary actions, and there
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the
Board concludes that Petitioner's request warrants favorable
action.
more than eight months,
is no evidence that his overall performance was less than
satisfactory.
warranted the assignment of the most restrictive RE-4
reenlistment code or that he should be prevented from serving
again if the disqualifying medical condition no longer exists.
The Board concludes that it would be appropriate and proper to
change his reenlistment code to RE-3P.
The Board does not believe his period of service
RECOMMENDATION:
2
a.
That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by changing
the RE-4 reenlistment code,
RE-3P.
assigned on 15 August 1996, to
b.
That any material or entries inconsistent with or
relating to the Board's recommendation be corrected, removed or
completely expunged from Petitioner's record and that no such
entries or material be added to the record in the future.
C .
That any material directed to be removed from
Petitioner's naval record be returned to the Board together with
a copy of this Report of Proceedings, for retention in
confidential file maintained for such purpose, with no cross
references being made a part of Petitioner's naval record.
a.
It is certified that a quorum was
4.
and that the foregoing is a true and
review and deliberations,
complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled
matter.
present.at the Board's
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Recorder
Acting Recorder
Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section 6
5.
(e) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of
Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6
(e)) and having assured compliance with its provisions, it is
hereby announced that the foregoing corrective action, taken
under the authority of reference (a),
Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.
has been approved by the
Executive D
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00981-09
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 S Ci NZS SMS Docket No: 981-09 16 April 2009 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records TO: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF @j——/iill Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former member of the Marine Corps, applied to this Board requesting an RE-3 reenlistment code vice the RE-4 that was issued on 7 January 2003. e....
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04288-01
1552 (1) Case Summary (2) Subject's naval record From: To: Subj: Ref: Encl: Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a 1. former enlisted member of the Navy filed an application with this Board requesting that her record be corrected by changing the RE-4 reenlistment code assigned on 21 August 1998. The Board further concludes that this Report of Proceedings should be filed in Petitioner's naval record so that all future reviewers will understand the reason for the change in...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01636-00
You were honorably discharged on You state in your application that your knee has healed and you desire to reenlist. In support of your case, you have submitted Regulations only allow for the assignment of an RE-3P or an RE-4 reenlistment code when an individual is discharged due to a physical disability. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 00674-05
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written application, enclosure (1), with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected to show that he was honorably discharged by reason of physical disability and assigned a reentry code of RE-3, vice under honorable conditions by reason of a condition, not a disability, interfering with his performance of duty, with a general discharge and a reentry code of...
On March 25, 1991, the applicant was discharged from the Coast Guard pursuant to Article 12.B.12 of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual. The JAG stated that the applicant was separated for a physical disability and a RE-3G reenlistment code was entirely appropriate. Although the JAG and CGPC did not recommend that the requested relief be granted, neither objected to correcting the applicant’s record if the following corrections were requested by the applicant: a. b. c. Separation...
CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 2004-165
However, the doctor noted that because of the atrophy, an Initial Medical Board (IMB) should be convened even though the applicant was fit for duty. The Board noted that although his diagnoses were right optic nerve atrophy, right visual field defect, and asymmetrical disk cupping, a glaucoma specialist “is unsure of whether the patient suffers from early glaucoma versus idiopathic optic nerve atrophy.” The DMB determined that the applicant was not fit for world-wide duty and referred his...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05274-99
REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that her naval record be corrected to show that he was not discharged because of osteoporosis, and that his reenlistment code be changed. In the opinion of the orthopedic specialist who evaluated Petitioner, it was unclear whether the latter condition existed prior to Petitioner ’s enlistment, or...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07256-07
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.On 3 March 1987, you reenlisted in the Navy at age 25. On 6 January 1988, the Disability Evaluation...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08843-09
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former lance corporal of the Marine Corps Reserve, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting the narrative reason (“Personality Disorder”), JFX1 separation code, and RE-4 reenlistment code be changed. His case was forwarded to the separation authority, and on 4 August 2005, he received a general discharge and was assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code due to a “Personality Disorder”. The Board finds an impropriety in his...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02039-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 August 2000. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. the most favorable...